The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 7)

Here continues the Jerome Gambit article that I wrote for Kaissiber, a decade ago.

The defenses 6…Kf8 and 6…Ng6 have had their supporters and detractors, depending on how each evaluated the alternatives – was it better to hold onto a little material and avoid complications, or to enter them confidently, knowing that they would turn the game even more in your favor?

Jerome (DCJ 7/1874) first suggested 6…Kf8. He followed it with 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 9.c3 Kf7 10.d4 Bb6 11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Re8 13.0-0 Kg8 14.exf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Bh6 “and White has a pawn ahead.” (Actually, the game is even; but Jerome missed that earlier his 11.e5 was premature, as after the pawn exchange 12…Qd3 would be crushing – Paul Keiser, personal communication. The alternative 8…Ke8 was seen in 5 games in the Yetman – Farmer 2008 match.)

As Sorensen (NS 5/1877) did not mention 6…Kf8, it was not touched upon by other writers until Freeborough and Rankin (COAM, 1889) suggested that it led to a safe game for Black, giving the line 7.Qxe5 Qe7 8.Qf5+ Ke8 9.Nc3 d6 10.Qf3 Qf7 (or 10...Nf6!) 11.Qe2 Nh6 (or 11...Ne7 or 11...Nf6) with “a superior position or game” to Black.

A hundred years after Jerome, Harding, in his Counter Gambits (1974), varied, after 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qf4+ Nf6 with 9.d3 Kg8 10.Nc3 Qe8 11.Be3 Bb4 12.0-0 Be6 13.Ne2 Qh5 14.Nd4 Bd7 15.c3 Bc5, advantage to Black. His comment in The Italian Game (1977) was that after 7…d6, White was left “without genuine compensation for his piece.” He sagely recommended the 6…Kf8 line as “other lines would allow White to attack the exposed black king or to win back the sacrificed material.”

The first mention of the 6…Ng6 defense can be found in Jerome – Brownson 1875 (DCJ 3/1875) where Jerome won in 28 moves: 7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qc3 Nf6 10.d3 c6 11.0-0 Kd7 12.f4 Qb6+ 13.Kh1 Kc7 14.Qe1 Re8 15.b3 Nd5 16.Qg3 Nb4 17.Na3 Bd7 18.c3 Nxa2 19.f5 Ne5 20.d4 Qxb3 21.dxe5 dxe5 22.Rb1 Qxc3 23.Be3 a6 24.Qxg7 b5 25.Rf3 Kc8 26.Rd1 Rd8 27.Bb6 Kb7 28.Bxd8 and wins.

The second mention of 6…Ng6 was by Sorensen (NS 5/1877) who gave Jerome’s 7.Qd5+ a "!"

After Jerome’s 10.d3, Gossip (Theory, 1879), evaluated the position, “…White has still some attack to compensate him for his lost piece; besides which, Black has lost the privilege of castling, and is moreover a pawn minus…” This was echoed by Charles (Brentano, 10/1881) - “White still has some attack” - and by Cook (Synopsis, 1882) –“White has some attack to compensate for his lost piece" - but this seems optimistic. (Lanning – Zim, Utah 1879 saw 10…Rf8 11.Bg5 Nd5 12.ed?! Qxg5 13.0-0 Nh4 14.g3 and Black announced mate in 8.)

Gossip said Brownson’s 10…c6 11.0-0 Kd7 was

a line of play which we venture to think objectionable for

Black, to say the least, inasmuch as it blocks the Queen's Bishop,

and unnecessarily retards the development of Black's game. We

should prefer the sortie of the Bishop to King's third at once.”

Later, he evaluated the position after 10.d3 c6 11.0-0 Be6 as equal (Vade 

Mecum, 1891).

Freeborough and Rankin’s (COAM, 1889) alternative 10…Kf7, seems simple and good for Black.

It is clear that after 6…Kf8 or 6…Ng6, if White is going to have any chance for success, he is again going to have to rely on what use he can get out of his extra pawns, against Black’s extra piece. Jerome – Brownson 1874 is one (flawed) example. In the match game Vazquez – Carrington, 1876, and the correspondence game Charlick- Mann, Australia, 1881 the White Queen retreated to e3 instead of c3, on move nine, and the first players able to do that, winning in 34 and 72 moves, respectively.

7.Qf5+

This was Jerome’s first suggestion (DCJ, 4/1874) in this position. He also played 7.f4 and 7.O-O, and suggested 7.b4 “for analysis” (Brentano, 10/1881).

After 7.f4 d6 Jerome lost an 1881correspondence game to Charles with 8.f5 Kd7 (8…Ke7 was likewise better for Black in Jerome –Zimmerman, correspondence 1880, but 1-0, 21 when Black blundered); 9.d3 Nf6 10.Qd1 Nxe4, and another with 8.Qh3+ Ke7 9.f5 (although Charles returned a piece prematurely with 9…Bxf5) (Brentano, 10/1881).

Winning back one of White’s two sacrificed pieces after 7.f4 d6 with 8.fe de seems more logical for the first player, but he remains too undeveloped to claim an attack. The optimistic 7.f4 d6 8.d4 was played in an 1878 game in Italy, and led to an amusing miniature:  8…Bxd4 (8…Nf6! Turns the tables, from blackburne – Wilmy, a Banks internet game, 2004) 9.c3 Bb6 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Na3 Nf6 12.Qf5+ Kd6? 13.Nc4+! Kc5 14.Qxe5+ Kxc4 15.b3+ Kd3 16.Bf4 Kc2 17.Rc1+ Kb2 18.c4+ Ka3 19.Rc2 Re8 and White announced mate (Nuova Rivista, 1878).

A recent suggestion by Schiller (UCO, 1998) after 7.f4 is 7…Qf6, which looks good for Black as well. His assessment of the position after 7.f4 is worth noting

            White will win back one of the sacrificed pieces. Black

should react calmly be developing and protecting the king. It is

useful to keep in mind that for an attack to succeed the attacker

usually requires greater force than that which defends the king.

Here the Black king is surrounded by pieces, and White has only

 the queen and a pair of pawns. The Black king can retreat to e7,

but this would confine the black queen. Therefore the correct

move [7…Qf6] suggests itself.

After 7.O-O Charles (Brentano, 10/1881) gave 7...d6 as best (7…g6 8.Qh3+ followed by 9.Qc3; or 7…Qf6 8.b4 Qg6 9.Qh3+ Kd6 10.bc+ Kc6 11.d4) noting that after 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Qd1 the move 9…Nc6 could be safely played. He gave the alternative 9…Kf7 10.d4 Bg4 11.f3 (or 11.Qd2 Bb6 12.de de) Nxf3 12.gf Bh3 with a better game. The correspondence game Jerome – Charles 1881 continued with Black returning pieces for pawns and positional advantage: 9…Nd3 10.cd Kf7 11.Ne2 Bb6 12.Kh1 Ng4 13.d4 Nxh2 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxe4 16.d3 Qg4 17.Be3 d5 18.f3 Qe6 19.Bf2 c6.

No one else except the Gambit’s originator seems to have hazarded 7.O-O, and, as it simply leaves White two pieces down, there is no reason for anyone to follow closely in his footsteps.

7…Kd6 8.f4

Again, this is Jerome’s first suggestion (DCJ, 4/1874).

Jerome (DCJ, 1/1875) also looked at 8.d4, a move about which Sorensen (NS, 1877) said breezily, “It is impossible to decide whether this attacking move is stronger than a multitude of others which offer themselves in this interesting position, and of which we especially like 8.f4 and 8.Na3, but it seems clear every case into what abysses Black is plunging.” 

After 8.d4 Bxd4 9.Na3 two of the three defenses that Jerome (DCJ, 1/1875) presented (9…Ne7, 9...Ke7) were sufficient for Black’s advantage, as they left the second player two pieces up. The third (9…Qf6) led to White’s advantage.

Sorensen (NS, 5/1877) repaired for White the line 9…Ne7 10.Qh3 Qf8 by replacing Jerome’s 11.O-O with the consistent 11.Nb5+ which brings danger to Black’s King.

He copied Jerome’s line 9…Qf6 10.Nb5+ Kc5 11.Nxd4 Qxf5 12.Nxf5 g6 13.Be3+ Kc6 14.Nd4+ Kd6 15.O-O-O Ke7 16.Nb5 and said “White has the best position” – but this would not be the case after the correct 13…Kb5.

Finally, Sorensen replaced Jerome’s 9…Ke7 10.Qh3 (10.Nb5 is better, but it comes to naught) d6 11.Qh4+ Ke8 with 9…c6 noting “with this move Black escapes.” The recommended 9.c6 showed up in 4 of the Yetman – Farmer games, which finished 1-2-1.

Sorensen also suggested the direct 8.Na3 which “appears to offer favorable chances for White” according to Gossip (Theory, 1879), although it is hard to see anything but misery for White after the straightforward 8…Bxa3.

8…Qf6

Jack Young, in a Randspringer article (#6, 1990-1991), reported facing 8…Nf3+ (“Foreseeing the loss of a piece, Black gives one back for some ferocious counterplay”) 8…Qe7 and 8…Qh4+ 9.g3 Qf6 in this position, in games against dedicated chess computers (e.g. Chess Challenger 10, Super Constellation). His successes were more due to the weaknesses of the play of the machines, not the strengths of his positions with the white pieces.

The active 8…Nf3+ had actually occurred over 100 years earlier in an 1876 correspondence game between Jerome and D.P. Norton (0-1, 42). Then 9.gf seems best, leading to an unclear position with mutually-unsafe Kings after 9…Qh4+ 10.Kd1. Jerome played 9.Kf1, escaped danger with some tactical tricks and Norton oversights, but was out-played in the ending.

Also, 8…Qh4+ 9.g3 Nf3+ had appeared in a silly game, “R.F.” vs “Nibs” in the June 1899 issue of the American Chess Magazine, which had made fun of the new craze – chess by telephone! The game ended 10.Kd1 Ne7 11.e5+ Kd5 12.Qd3, but of course 11…Kc6 was better for Black, e.g. 12.Qe4+ d5 13.exd6+ Nd5 14.gh Bg4 as in the internet game abhailey –peonconorejas, 2008 (0-1,20).

9.fe+ Qxe5 10.Qf3 Nf6

10…Ne7 was seen in Jerome – Jaeger, Correspondence, 1878, when Black quickly returned a piece for a balanced game with 11.c3 Ng6 12.d4 Bxd4 13.cd Qxd4 14.Nc3 c6. He then proceeded to outplay his opponent in 68 moves 0-1.

11.d3 Kc6

This King move (attributed to B.K. Neufville) “gives Black an opportunity for a counter attack and makes an exciting contest” according to Jerome (ACJ, 4/1878).

In Jerome- Shinkman, 1874, Black instead retreated his King to e7, played …g5, …c6 and …d5, developed his pieces and at the 21^st move “Mr. Shinkman announced loss of the Queen or mate in six moves.” (DCJ, 7/1874). In Jerome – Brownson, 1875, Black retreated his King in the same manner, played …d6, and focused on exchanging pieces, although he blundered on move 40 and resigned a few moves later (DCJ, 6/1875). (Jerome hung on doggedly in an 1878 correspondence game against Pane after 11…Ke7 12.Nc3 d5, until his opponent likewise put together too many weak moves, and the gambiteer prevailed in 41 moves)

In an 1876 off-hand game against Jerome, an Amateur borrowed the King retreat and c-pawn push from Shinkman, the weak play from Pane, and the blunders from Brownson, and was checkmated in 20 moves!

12.Nc3 c6

Equally solid was 12…d6 13.Bf4 Qh5 14.Qf1 Re8 15.Ne2 Bg4 16.Ng3 Qf7 17.h3Bh5 18.Kd2 Bd4, when Jerome self-destructed and lost horribly in 34 moves, Jerome – Colburn, correspondence 1879. Modern alternatives 13.Bd2 and 14…Bb4, from two Yetman – Farmer games, did nothing to change White’s prospects.

13.h3 Qh5 14.Qg3 Be6 15.Ne2 Raf8

Black is developed, and his extra piece puts White’s King in more danger than his own, in one of the Jerome – Charles correspondence games (Brentano, 10/1881).

It is at this point that James Mortimer (Pocket-Book, 1888) suggested for Black to play instead 15…Ng4 16.Rf1 Bf2+ 17.Rxf2 Nxf2 18.Qxf2, giving up two pieces for a Rook and ending up with a lead in development, as well as the exchange for a pawn. This is not as strong as Charles’ move, and is better met by 16.d4, in any event, although Black still has the advantage. 

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 6)

Here continues the Jerome Gambit article that I wrote for Kaissiber, a decade ago.

Analysis

            The analysis presented below is largely to give a historical context, as the commentators throughout the life of the Jerome Gambit – whether with a wink and a nod, or with a scowl and a grimace – have been accurate in their assessment that the attack is unsound and objectively places the gambiteer at a disadvantage.

The Jerome Gambit may best be employed in casual or blitz games, or as a way for the first player to offer odds to a weaker opponent. The game Charlick – Holloway, Adelaide 1877, mentioned below in the “Unanswered Questions” section, was the second of two match games; in the first, Charlick had given knight’s odds to his opponent, and lost.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6  3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5

As early as his first article with analysis (DCJ 4/1874), Alonzo Jerome considered the possibility that Black might refuse to capture the second piece, and play for King safety instead with 5...Kf8. This was, in fact, the defense that Hallock used in an 1876 correspondence game played “by special request” to test the gambit (ACJ 2/1877), that Carrington tried in his match vs Vazquez (Algunas Partidas 1879), and which Sorensen recommended as “more solid and easier to manage” (NS 5/1877). After 6.Nxc6 dc (Jerome gave 6…bc 7.d4 “putting Black’s KB out of play”) analysis has generally followed Jerome – Brownson, 1875, with 7.O-O Nf6 8.Qf3 (Sorensen said 8.e5 would be met by 8…Bg4 9.Qe1 Kf7! which was how Norton – Hallock had continued ) Qd4 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qg3At this point, Brownson played 10…Bb6. Jerome responded with 11.e5, and drew the game, with help from his opponent, in 29 moves. Brownson (DCJ 3/1875) suggested 11.Kh1 and 12.f4 as an improvement for White.

Sorensen (NS, 5/1877) gave the alternative line 10…Bd6, attacking White’s Queen, and followed this up with 11.Bf4 g5 12.Bxd6+ cd 13.h3 Be6 14.Qxg5 Rg8 15.Qh6+ Ke7 16.Nc3 Rg6 17.Qh4 Rag8 with a better game for Black. However, Charles (PT 4/27/81) offered 11.c3 as an improvement, suggested to him by Jerome, which they believed reversed the valuation of the line. (As an historical aside, later sources, relying on Sorensen’s analysis, miss 11.c3; those that follow Charles’ work, based on his Brentano article or on the American Supplement, include it.)

As a response to Jerome’s/Charles’ 11.c3, Paul Keiser (personal communication) has recommended that Black vary earlier, swapping the placement of his Queen and Bishop, assessing that after 8…Qd6 9.d3 Bg4 10.Qf4 Bd4 11.Qxd6+ cd 12.c3 Bb6 13.d4 Be6 Black is winning.

After 5…Kf8, White has the option of playing 6.Qh5 (Banks – Wess, Great Britain, 2003) when Black should transpose with 6…Nxe5 (ACJ 3/1877).

Dr. William Paulsen, on his chess openings website (www.csm.astate.edu/~wpaulsen/chess/chess.htm?002137) gives 5…Ke7 as the “Giuoco Piano  - Jerome Gambit Variation II,” noting “By moving the king instead of taking the knight, White cannot attack the king with his queen. Black ends up with more material.” However, White has the advantage after 6.Qh5.

None of the analysts appear to have looked at 5…Ke8, which showed up in Blackstone - Dommeyer, skittles game, USA 1960, continuing: 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Nxg6 Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Nf4+ Kd8 10.d3 d6 11.Rf1 Qd4+ 12.Be3 Qf6 13.c3 1-0 An improvement for White might be 6.Nxc6, leading to a roughly even game; while Black improves over the text with 8…Nf6, holding the advantage.

With two pawns, Black’s displaced King, and the doubled black c-pawns as compensation for the piece, White’s best play of this line would seem to be to follow Jerome’s original advice for “the judicious use of his pawns.”

6.Qh5+

The alternative 6.d4, has been seen several times. A couple of Jerome’s games continued 6…Bxd4 7.Qxd4 d6. Against Shinkman in 1876, Jerome played 8.O-O and 9.f4, with a draw in 42, after Black attacked with pawns on the Queenside, defended poorly on the Kingside, and allowed a central breakthrough.

An uncompleted correspondence game against Charles in 1881 continued, instead, 8.Nc3 (best, according to Charles, in Brentano, 10/1881) Nf6 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.O-O-O Be6 12.Kb1 Nc4 where the latter suggested a win for Black after 13.Qd3 b5 14.f4 Nxb2 15.Kxb2 b4. A second unfinished game against Charles varied with 9…Bh3 10.O-O-O Bxg2 11.f4 h6 12.Bxf6 gf 13.Rhg1 Bh3 14.fe with what Charles considered a better game for White. (Charles missed that 11…Nf3 would have kept Black on top.)

Charles had suggested (Telegraph, 1/19/1881) after 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Qxd4 the defense 7…Qf6 8.Qd1 d6  (Jerome –Norton, unfinished correspondence game 1876, continued 8…Ne7) 9.O-O (following Jerome – Jaeger, corr 1878, 1-0, 35) and later expanded the line (Brentano, 10/1881) 9…g6 10.f4 Nc6 (10…Nc4 in Telegraph, 11/2/1881). It looks adequate but second best to the straight forward 7…d6.

Sorensen – X, Denmark 1888, saw a dashing counterattack: 6.d4 Qh4 that Black sadly misplayed, then lost: 7.0-0 Ng4 8.h3 Bd6 (better 8…Bb6) 9.e5 Bxe5 (sacrificing the Knight, or retreating the Bishop are better) 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qd5+ Kf6 12.f4 Ng6 (better 12…Nc6 moving out of the way of the advancing pawn) 13.Nc3 d6 14.Be3 (14.f5 is crushing) Ke7 15.Rae1 Kd8 16.Nb5 Nf6 17.Qc4 Ne8 18.Bf2 Qf6 19.Bd4 Qh4 20.Rxe8+ Kxe8 21.Nxc7+ Kf8 22.f5 Ne5 23.f6 gxf6 24.Qd5 Kg7 25.Qxd6 Rg8 (last chance for a swindle: 25…Bxh3 26.hg?? Qg3+ wins) 26.Rxf6 Qxf6 27.Bxe5 and White won.

The Sorensen game was given at length here to encourage those who love a coffee house-style King hunt, and to serve as a warning for defenders who believe that returning sacrificed material automatically creates a safe game.

Finally: Jerome (DCJ, 7/1874) offered, “The following is a possibility of the game” and gave the amusing 6.d4 Bb6 7.Qh5+ Ke6 8.Qf5+ Kd6 9.Qxe5+ Kc6 10.Qd5 mate.

6…Ke6

It was at this point that Blackburne played 6…g6 in his game versus an unknown amateur - not A.W. Jerome, as mistakenly reported by Schiller (UCO, 1998, 2002) - at Simpson’s Divan, returning material after 7.Qxe5 d6 8.Qxh8 for a strong counter-attack: 8…Qh4 9.0-0 Nf6 10.c3 Ng4 11.h3 Bxf2+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Qxa8 Qxh3+ 14.gxh3 Bxe4 mate. Thereafter, most of the Jerome Gambit “analyses” that appeared in books was represented by the moves of this miniature, with scant or no further investigation.

It is important for those who defend against the Jerome Gambit to remember all of Blackburne’s idea. (Carrington’s earlier 7…Nf6 against Vazquez left Black down material after 8.Qxc5.) Peter Banks, who plays the Gambit both on the Internet and over-the-board; Louis Morin, who has extensive online Jerome experience; and predator Brian Wall all have reported blitz games where their opponents quickly played the first 6 moves, puzzled over the next one, and wound up forcing a Queenless middle game, a pawn down (7…Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6). White won all.

It is not clear exactly when the idea 9.d4 Qxe4+ 10.Be3, which may reverse the assessment of the Blackburne game and give White chances, was discovered - Fletcher’s Gambit’s Accepted (1954) is an early source – but 9.d4 by itself was a suggestion of Munoz and Munoz, in 1885 (BCC 8/1885). . Hindemburg Melao, in a recent internet article (not currently available), where he identified the player of the white pieces against Blackburne as “Millner,” gave 9.d4 Nf6 10.Nd2 Bxd4 11.O-O as good for White. (It should be noted that Bruce Pandolfini, in his 1989 Chess Openings: Traps & Zaps gives the line 9.d4 Nf6 10.dc, and after the further moves 10...Qxe4+ 11.Be3 Qxg2 12.Rf1 reflects: “Don't be misled by White's extra Rook. It's a meaningless ornament. White is in serious trouble. His King is exposed and his cornered Queen is in danger of being trapped. The cruncher is …12...Bh3 which wins White's Queen by discovery from the a8-Rook. If White tries to save the Queen by capturing the Rook, 13.Qxa8 then 13...Qxf1+ 14.Kd2 Ne4#” Of course 10…Qxe4+ deserves a “?”)

After the Blackburne game’s 9.O-O Nf6, Melao mentioned that Idel Becker, in his Manual de xadrez, attributed 10.d4 to Euwe (source not mentioned). Melao was skeptical about the move, giving Black’s counter-attack 10…Bh3 11.gh Rxh8 12.dc Qxh3 13.f3 g5 14.Rf2 g4 15. Bf4 gf 16.Bg3 h5 17.Nd2 h4 18.Nf3 Qg4 with advantage for Black. He preferred 10.Qd8 for White and said after 10…Bb6 11.e5 de 12.Qd3 he could not see how Black could be successful. Patrick Buchmann likewise showed how 10…Be6, 10…Qxe4+ and 10…Bd7 fared no better against 10.Qd8.

While the suggested move 10.Qd8 appears as early as 1885 (BCC 8/1885), it is important to note that recent analysis by Chandler and Dimitrov (2004) shows that Black is not worse, and can in fact draw with 10…Bh3 11.Qxc7+ Kf8 12.gh Qxh3 13.Qxb7 Qg4+ and 14…Qf3+

However, all is still not said and done with this 125 year old masterpiece: recall that Jerome, himself, faced severe treatment in 1876 at the hands of Norton and Whistler, who played 7…Qe7 8.Qxh8 Qxe4+ and had strong attacks. This idea has recently re-appeared in a 2002 internet article by Catalan Master Richard Guerrero Sanmarti and one in 2004 by Brian Wall and Tyrin Price. All is new that has been forgotten!

[to be continued]

The Jerome Gambit Article (Part 5)

Here continues the Jerome Gambit article that I wrote for Kaissiber, a decade ago.

Mention of the Jerome Gambit in chess books, thereafter, is sporadic, usually simply as the name of the opening played in a Blackburne miniature (perhaps with a suggested move or two); but sometimes serving as part of a dire warning, as in Chernev and Harkness’s An Invitation to Chess (1945) “Mistakes in the Opening” chapter, or Gerald Abrahams’ The Chess Mind (1951)

...Objectively regarded, every winning position, and every

losing position, is an unbalanced position; a position in which a

player has a great advantage in tempo, or in space, or in the capacity

to bring great force to bear effectively on a given point…

Chess opinion has convincingly condemned many extravagant

unbalancing attacks, such as the once popular Jerome gambit…which

yield the unbalancer nothing but loss against good defense.

Still, there were exceptions. Fletcher’s wonderful Gambit’s Accepted, A Survey of Opening Sacrifices (1954) included the Jerome Gambit, and his selection of the example Club Game “Anonymous – Anonymous” impishly suggested a need to shelter from public scrutiny those who would play such openings

Every inventor must have considered his gambit as a winning

one, so in this Part all gambits are won by White, and all counter

gambits by Black. One game for each of the eighty-four openings is

included, being numbered according to the classification tabulated in

Part I, and, as far as possible, short games have been selected from

master play. This was not as easy as might be imagined, for so often

an otherwise suitable tournament or match game was not won by the

proper colour required for our purpose. In several cases, therefore, it

has been necessary to search for games outside first-class circles, and,

in the thirteen selections when this has been done, the names of the

players have been suppressed and the contest given as a Club Game.

            Fletcher also tossed out 9.d4 as a possible counter to Blackburne’s refutation of the Jerome Gambit, and even included the over-familiar

The opening is frankly unsound but Black's task is by no

means easy and he can quite likely go wrong

Harding dismissed the Jerome Gambit in the 1970s, Zuckerman touched briefly on the Jerome in a column in Chess Life in the early 1980s, Gambit Revue had an article on it in the late 1980s, and Randspringer had one in the early 1990s. Tim Harding again made a passing reference in 2001 to “the manic Jerome Gambit” in his 4-part series on the Giuoco Piano in his “The Kibitzer” column at the on-line ChessCafe (www.chesscafe.com).

That the Jerome Gambit’s status had descended of late to being the representation of bad form is illustrated by a couple of Internet newsgroup postings

Even the Jerome Gambit, which is probably the worst

recognized gambit in all of chess, does offer some reasons for

analysis. However, this sequence of moves you give here is

simply a blunder with no redeeming social value...

  Even if the raison d'etre for the committee is deader than the Jerome Gambit...

In the last few years, however the Jerome Gambit has been rescued from obscurity by Eric Schiller, who covered it in his Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998, 2002), Gambit Chess Openings (2002), and Survive and Beat Annoying Chess Openings (2003). He gave a little of what is rare - new analysis in the last 50 years - but his attitude was less tongue-in-cheek than thumb-in-eye.

This is another cyberspace gambit. Virtually no attention

was paid to this reckless move [4.Bxf7+] until its supporters started

talking about it on the Internet. It can't be found in recent tournament

games, and there is a good reason: It stinks. White whips up a brief

attack, easily parried, and then spends a long time trying to justify the

sacrifice. A popular gambit in cyberspace, but in the real world, it

only succeeds in games where Black is a very weak player.

Schiller noted, quite accurately, that the Jerome Gambit is “awaiting a hero!”

No more respectful, but infinitely more entertaining, is IM Geoff Chandler’s 2004 Internet send-up of the Blackburne game as being played by Mars vs. Earth, “annotated” with pictures from the infamous 1962 bubble-gum card series, “Mars Attacks!” In that same year, openings iconoclast 

Brian Wall, and his protégé Tyrin Price, published a definitive analysis of Whistler’s defense to the Jerome Gambit (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/BrianWallChess/message/80 ) In passing it can be noted that Price’s opinion of the Jerome returns the proper humorous perspective

The Jerome Gambit ... now *that* is coffee house ... fully caffeinated - extra strength (use only as directed for prompt temporary relief of quiet games [if conditions persist seek professional guidance]). :-)

Most recently, International Master Gary Lane has been entertaining Jerome Gambit

questions from readers of his “Opening Lanes” ChessCafe column (http://www.chesscafe.com/lane/lane.htm), and went so far as to annotate an amateur’s game. The discovery of the serious Yettman-Farmer, Arizonza, USA 2006 Jerome Gambit match (see box) shows that, however feeble, the Jerome Gambit still lives!

[to be continued]